Jump to content

Bye Bye Medicare...way to go rednecks!!


Recommended Posts

After the 2004 presidential election, Republicans were right where they wanted to be. A GOP president had narrowly prevailed, and he was eager to work with a House and Senate that were also controlled by his own party. And what was one of the top priorities for this ascendant Republican Party? At the time, it was privatization of Social Security.

This did not go over well. The public was not on board with the plan – many voters said it wasn’t what they had in mind when they voted for Republican candidates – and the privatization push not only failed, it sparked a rather intense backlash.

Twelve years after the last GOP sweep, Republicans are once again poised to take control of entire federal government, party leaders are establishing their new goals, and privatizing a popular social-insurance program is once again a top priority. In fact, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told Fox News’ Bret Baier yesterday that Medicare privatization is high on the party’s to-do list. New York’s Jon Chait explained:
“Your solution has always been to put things together, including entitlement reform,” asks Baier, using Republican code for privatizing Medicare. Ryan replies, “If you’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare, you have to address those issues as well…. Medicare has got some serious issues because of Obamacare. So those things are part of our plan to replace Obamacare.”


Ryan tells Baier, “Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke.”

This is critically important, in part because Ryan is brazenly lying. The budgetary reality, whether Republicans like it or not, is that the Affordable Care Act improved Medicare’s financial stability, extending the system’s solvency by more than a decade. There’s an inside-the-Beltway assumption that when it comes to fiscal arithmetic, Ryan can be trusted to get the numbers right. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

But in this case, it’s also worth appreciating why Ryan is so shamelessly trying to deceive the public.

Throughout the Obama era, Ryan has pushed a radical budget plan that would effectively eliminate the Medicare system, phasing it out of existence and replacing it with a voucher system. Seniors, under the Speaker’s vision, would stop receiving guaranteed care under a popular and effective government-run program, and would instead receive vouchers that would help pay for coverage through private insurers.

Ryan has been an enthusiastic proponent of such a scheme throughout his career – long before “Obamacare” became the law of the land. Now, however, the Wisconsin congressman seems to think he can use the ACA as an excuse to do what he’s wanted to do anyway for nearly a decade. In other words, Ryan’s message for years has been, “I want to privatize Medicare.” Now, his message has become, “It’s Obamacare’s fault that we have to privatize Medicare.”

But we don’t. The Speaker is plainly and demonstrably wrong. Repealing the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t help Medicare’s finances; it would do the exact opposite, pushing the Medicare system closer to insolvency.

Telling the truth, however, wouldn’t help advance the plan Ryan has long advocated, so he’s using “Obamacare” as a convenient fig leaf.

The broader question remains who, exactly, the House Speaker is trying to convince. Clearly, one of the intended audiences of Ryan’s falsehood is the public, which has little appetite for his Medicare privatization plan. But let’s not forget that the Speaker may also be trying to convince a man by the name of Donald Trump – who’s at least paid lip service to the idea that Medicare needs to remain intact.

Will the incoming president reverse course and endorse his party’s Medicare privatization scheme? It’s hard to say for sure – because no one asked Trump during the campaign for his thoughts on Ryan’s budget blueprint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If this is ever again going to be the "free country" that the founders intended "Social Security", Medicare and Obama care all nee to go down the toilet.

 

Of course, this government then needs to return the nearly 15% of our wages that it tyrannically confiscated along with a decent rate of return and a giant apology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, tax dollars also pay for critical elements of the health care system apart from direct care—Medicare funds much of the expensive equipment hospitals use, for instance, along with all medical residencies. Why do conservatives WANT to further increase the cost of healthcare to themselves? Do conservatives not realize they are getting duped?

 

Do conservatives NOT realize how many conservative voters love their social security insurance money that either keeps food on the table or allows for additional recreational activities for those conservatives who are not necessarily poor nor necessarily wealthy? We have some very wealthy golden age

pals that do not see any reason to put their Social Security Insurance at risk on Wall Street. In fact they do not invest in Wall Street because all Wall Street players lose some money no matter how much they claim to make. The question that is never asked is HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE LOSE?

 

 

Time to Separate Fact from Fiction

 

 

What impact would the conversion of Social Security Insurance to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts. Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years. This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. I

 

 

How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

 

 

Americans may well underestimate the degree to which they subsidize the current U.S. health care system out of their own pockets. And almost no one recognizes that even people without health insurance pay substantial sums into the system today. If more people understood the full size of the health care bill that they as individuals are already paying—and for a system that provides seriously inadequate care to millions of Americans—then the corporate opponents of a universal single-payer system might find it far more difficult to frighten the public about the costs of that system.

 

 

In other words, to recognize the advantages of a single-payer system, we have to understand how the United States funds health care and health research and how much it actually costs us today.

 

 

By any measure, the United States spends an enormous amount of money on health care. Here are a few of those measures. In 2006, U.S. health care spending exceeded 16% of the nation’s GDP. To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9%, France 10.7%, Germany 10.9%, Sweden 9.1%, and the United Kingdom 8.7%. Or consider per capita spending: the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161, France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.


The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623


Link to comment
Share on other sites

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference. The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system. But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

Michael Milliken went to prison for making the same claim that GW Bush was making. Why isn't GW Bush in prison?

My grandfather always made clear to me that Wall Street was only for those who can afford to lose money aka the very wealthy. Yes he played Wall Street however he wanted to be sure that I fully understood the risk involved. For the very wealthy Wall Street is recreation.

How many can afford to lose money?

How many can afford to keep their retirement plans at risk 24/7?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prison for what?

 

Have Social Security Insurance opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

 

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

Michael Milliken went to prison for making the same claim that GW Bush was making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have Social Security Insurance opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

 

 

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

 

Michael Milliken went to prison for making the same claim that GW Bush was making.

So that means Bush should be in prison?

 

Milliken stole money and committed fraud......

 

In Bush's opinion the investment might be good for some tax payers.......And you put people in prison for having an opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

 

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953. In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying.

If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud.

Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

 

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

 

 

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

 

 

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

 

 

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953. In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying.

 

 

If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud.

 

 

Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

 

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

 

 

 

Merrill...

 

Bush along with members of Congress thought this was a good idea...

 

However it never was voted into law...

 

Milliken's crimes were vast ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

After the 2004 presidential election, Republicans were right where they wanted to be. A GOP president had narrowly prevailed, and he was eager to work with a House and Senate that were also controlled by his own party. And what was one of the top priorities for this ascendant Republican Party? At the time, it was privatization of Social Security.

 

This did not go over well. The public was not on board with the plan – many voters said it wasn’t what they had in mind when they voted for Republican candidates – and the privatization push not only failed, it sparked a rather intense backlash.

 

Twelve years after the last GOP sweep, Republicans are once again poised to take control of entire federal government, party leaders are establishing their new goals, and privatizing a popular social-insurance program is once again a top priority. In fact, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told Fox News’ Bret Baier yesterday that Medicare privatization is high on the party’s to-do list. New York’s Jon Chait explained:

“Your solution has always been to put things together, including entitlement reform,” asks Baier, using Republican code for privatizing Medicare. Ryan replies, “If you’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare, you have to address those issues as well…. Medicare has got some serious issues because of Obamacare. So those things are part of our plan to replace Obamacare.”

 

Ryan tells Baier, “Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke.”

This is critically important, in part because Ryan is brazenly lying. The budgetary reality, whether Republicans like it or not, is that the Affordable Care Act improved Medicare’s financial stability, extending the system’s solvency by more than a decade. There’s an inside-the-Beltway assumption that when it comes to fiscal arithmetic, Ryan can be trusted to get the numbers right. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

 

But in this case, it’s also worth appreciating why Ryan is so shamelessly trying to deceive the public.

 

Throughout the Obama era, Ryan has pushed a radical budget plan that would effectively eliminate the Medicare system, phasing it out of existence and replacing it with a voucher system. Seniors, under the Speaker’s vision, would stop receiving guaranteed care under a popular and effective government-run program, and would instead receive vouchers that would help pay for coverage through private insurers.

 

Ryan has been an enthusiastic proponent of such a scheme throughout his career – long before “Obamacare” became the law of the land. Now, however, the Wisconsin congressman seems to think he can use the ACA as an excuse to do what he’s wanted to do anyway for nearly a decade. In other words, Ryan’s message for years has been, “I want to privatize Medicare.” Now, his message has become, “It’s Obamacare’s fault that we have to privatize Medicare.”

 

But we don’t. The Speaker is plainly and demonstrably wrong. Repealing the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t help Medicare’s finances; it would do the exact opposite, pushing the Medicare system closer to insolvency.

 

Telling the truth, however, wouldn’t help advance the plan Ryan has long advocated, so he’s using “Obamacare” as a convenient fig leaf.

 

The broader question remains who, exactly, the House Speaker is trying to convince. Clearly, one of the intended audiences of Ryan’s falsehood is the public, which has little appetite for his Medicare privatization plan. But let’s not forget that the Speaker may also be trying to convince a man by the name of Donald Trump – who’s at least paid lip service to the idea that Medicare needs to remain intact.

 

Will the incoming president reverse course and endorse his party’s Medicare privatization scheme? It’s hard to say for sure – because no one asked Trump during the campaign for his thoughts on Ryan’s budget blueprint.

 

You are aware medicare is taken out of Social Security payments. So are you talking about ending Social Security rather than medicare? Or was this just one of those bait and switch psychological fear mongering things you do as trained to perform playing devil's advocate for some political party line of social divide and conquer the self evident with symbolism over substance arguments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

 

 

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

 

 

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

 

 

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953. In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying.

 

 

If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud.

 

 

Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

 

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

 

 

 

Merrill...

 

Bush along with members of Congress thought this was a good idea...

 

However it never was voted into law...

 

Milliken's crimes were vast ....

 

True but among them were:

 

Two other counts were related to tax evasion in transactions Milken carried out for a client of the firm, David Solomon, a fund manager.[22]

  • Selling stock without disclosure of an understanding that the purchaser would not lose money.
  • Agreeing to sell securities to a customer and to buy those securities back at a real loss to the customer, but with an understanding that he would try to find a future profitable transaction to make up for any losses.

 

The fact remains that there can be no guarantee of greater return on Wall Street investments .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

 

 

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

 

 

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

 

 

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953. In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying.

 

 

If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud.

 

 

Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

 

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

 

 

 

Merrill...

 

Bush along with members of Congress thought this was a good idea...

 

However it never was voted into law...

 

Milliken's crimes were vast ....

 

True but among them were:

 

Two other counts were related to tax evasion in transactions Milken carried out for a client of the firm, David Solomon, a fund manager.[22]

  • Selling stock without disclosure of an understanding that the purchaser would not lose money.
  • Agreeing to sell securities to a customer and to buy those securities back at a real loss to the customer, but with an understanding that he would try to find a future profitable transaction to make up for any losses.

 

The fact remains that there can be no guarantee of greater return on Wall Street investments .....

 

Why? Why not? How for both? No theories or theologies used to justify a faith real doesn't count statistically.

 

rhetorical question for anyone that follows either one of these people acting their role as social activists keeping everyone honoring their chosen beliefs cradle to grave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

After the 2004 presidential election, Republicans were right where they wanted to be. A GOP president had narrowly prevailed, and he was eager to work with a House and Senate that were also controlled by his own party. And what was one of the top priorities for this ascendant Republican Party? At the time, it was privatization of Social Security.

 

This did not go over well. The public was not on board with the plan – many voters said it wasn’t what they had in mind when they voted for Republican candidates – and the privatization push not only failed, it sparked a rather intense backlash.

 

Twelve years after the last GOP sweep, Republicans are once again poised to take control of entire federal government, party leaders are establishing their new goals, and privatizing a popular social-insurance program is once again a top priority. In fact, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told Fox News’ Bret Baier yesterday that Medicare privatization is high on the party’s to-do list. New York’s Jon Chait explained:

“Your solution has always been to put things together, including entitlement reform,” asks Baier, using Republican code for privatizing Medicare. Ryan replies, “If you’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare, you have to address those issues as well…. Medicare has got some serious issues because of Obamacare. So those things are part of our plan to replace Obamacare.”

 

Ryan tells Baier, “Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke.”

This is critically important, in part because Ryan is brazenly lying. The budgetary reality, whether Republicans like it or not, is that the Affordable Care Act improved Medicare’s financial stability, extending the system’s solvency by more than a decade. There’s an inside-the-Beltway assumption that when it comes to fiscal arithmetic, Ryan can be trusted to get the numbers right. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

 

But in this case, it’s also worth appreciating why Ryan is so shamelessly trying to deceive the public.

 

Throughout the Obama era, Ryan has pushed a radical budget plan that would effectively eliminate the Medicare system, phasing it out of existence and replacing it with a voucher system. Seniors, under the Speaker’s vision, would stop receiving guaranteed care under a popular and effective government-run program, and would instead receive vouchers that would help pay for coverage through private insurers.

 

Ryan has been an enthusiastic proponent of such a scheme throughout his career – long before “Obamacare” became the law of the land. Now, however, the Wisconsin congressman seems to think he can use the ACA as an excuse to do what he’s wanted to do anyway for nearly a decade. In other words, Ryan’s message for years has been, “I want to privatize Medicare.” Now, his message has become, “It’s Obamacare’s fault that we have to privatize Medicare.”

 

But we don’t. The Speaker is plainly and demonstrably wrong. Repealing the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t help Medicare’s finances; it would do the exact opposite, pushing the Medicare system closer to insolvency.

 

Telling the truth, however, wouldn’t help advance the plan Ryan has long advocated, so he’s using “Obamacare” as a convenient fig leaf.

 

The broader question remains who, exactly, the House Speaker is trying to convince. Clearly, one of the intended audiences of Ryan’s falsehood is the public, which has little appetite for his Medicare privatization plan. But let’s not forget that the Speaker may also be trying to convince a man by the name of Donald Trump – who’s at least paid lip service to the idea that Medicare needs to remain intact.

 

Will the incoming president reverse course and endorse his party’s Medicare privatization scheme? It’s hard to say for sure – because no one asked Trump during the campaign for his thoughts on Ryan’s budget blueprint.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for getting "off track".

 

Medicare should never be privatized never never never.

 

Many years ago when the Reagan/Bush savings and loan debacle occurred millions lost jobs. Many were close to"retirement age" or in fact were retired. So many of those lost their retirement plans associated with the Savings and Loan industry. Trying to become re-employed at that age is

not an easy task. But some managed though in low wage capacity.

 

Without Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance these people would have been shit out of luck and forced to rely on Social Services which is always a pain in the ass for conservatives.

 

Putting both in the hands of private industry is risky business because profits and CEO wages/golden parachutes become leeches on a system that cannot afford these attributes. Sure lots of white collars and their legislative puppets beat up on Social Security and Medicare BUT WHY THEN do these same faces want to own such terrible programs? They see trillions of tax dollars funding these programs thus guaranteeing a nice profit till death do they part ==== too risky for tax dollar investments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for getting "off track".

 

Medicare should never be privatized never never never.

 

Many years ago when the Reagan/Bush savings and loan debacle occurred millions lost jobs. Many were close to"retirement age" or in fact were retired. So many of those lost their retirement plans associated with the Savings and Loan industry. Trying to become re-employed at that age is

not an easy task. But some managed though in low wage capacity.

 

Without Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance these people would have been shit out of luck and forced to rely on Social Services which is always a pain in the ass for conservatives.

 

Putting both in the hands of private industry is risky business because profits and CEO wages/golden parachutes become leeches on a system that cannot afford these attributes. Sure lots of white collars and their legislative puppets beat up on Social Security and Medicare BUT WHY THEN do these same faces want to own such terrible programs? They see trillions of tax dollars funding these programs thus guaranteeing a nice profit till death do they part ==== too risky for tax dollar investments.

Off track? Avoiding the self evident again. How corrupted are you merril? Afraid to discuss the self evident inside out using all 6 degrees of separation simultaneously?

 

I have 15 ancestral positions to relate too and all you have is context selling possiblities now isn't Eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for getting "off track".

 

Medicare should never be privatized never never never.

 

Many years ago when the Reagan/Bush savings and loan debacle occurred millions lost jobs. Many were close to"retirement age" or in fact were retired. So many of those lost their retirement plans associated with the Savings and Loan industry. Trying to become re-employed at that age is

not an easy task. But some managed though in low wage capacity.

 

Without Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance these people would have been shit out of luck and forced to rely on Social Services which is always a pain in the ass for conservatives.

 

Putting both in the hands of private industry is risky business because profits and CEO wages/golden parachutes become leeches on a system that cannot afford these attributes. Sure lots of white collars and their legislative puppets beat up on Social Security and Medicare BUT WHY THEN do these same faces want to own such terrible programs? They see trillions of tax dollars funding these programs thus guaranteeing a nice profit till death do they part ==== too risky for tax dollar investments.

 

 

I stand by my positions ..... absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is ever again going to be the "free country" that the founders intended "Social Security", Medicare and Obama care all nee to go down the toilet.

 

Of course, this government then needs to return the nearly 15% of our wages that it tyrannically confiscated along with a decent rate of return and a giant apology.

It's the mandatory nature of the law that is the problem. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...